Reflection

8 SEPTEMBER 2003 • NCSALL

Focus onBasics

Most simply put, a curriculum is a guide for learning. Many

adult basic education teachers and literacy tutors pick up existing texts or curriculum packets and start teaching, with- out knowing why they’re using the curriculum or what philo- sophy of education it reflects. But “curriculum always repre- sents somebody’s version of what constitutes knowledge and a legitimate worldview” (Sleeter & Grant, 1991, p. 80). Every- one who chooses or creates curriculum needs to develop a personal philosophy of teaching and learning, examine the values and beliefs behind that philosophy, and design or select a curriculum that reflects those beliefs and values. In doing so, they must also rec- ognize that they exercise a lot of power: their choices will convey to students a particular world view.

This article is designed to provide adult basic education (ABE) practi- tioners with an introduction to three approaches to curriculum develop- ment, as a starting point for greater awareness about curriculum choices. The first approach, “traditional,” is borrowed from the K-12 school setting. The second, “learner-driven,” incorporates theories specific to adult literacy education as well as recent research about teaching and learning. The third approach, “critical,” sees education as a distinctly political act,

and curriculum development as func- tioning in personally or politically empowering ways. These three approaches to curriculum develop- ment emphasize different beliefs about education, but in practice the lines between them are blurring more and more. None of them represents a fixed ideology or body of thought. Each func- tions more as an organizing tool. Some of the research and theory used to explain one approach may appear in more than one category depending on the purposes and contexts in which they are being used. In the same way, teachers and tutors may find that, in the classroom, they draw from all three approaches when they create curriculum. The important point is that teachers be conscious of why they are choosing to use each approach.

The Traditional Approach

The traditional model was laid out by Ralph Tyler in 1949 in his seminal book, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, and is generally considered the mainstream way to conceptualize curriculum de- velopment. Many educators and adult literacy students find it familiar because of its wide use in public schools in the United States. The approach has a “subject-centered” orientation: students gain mastery of subject matter predeter- mined by a set of “experts.” Curriculum is organized around content units and the sequence of what is taught follows

the logic of the subject matter (Knowles, 1984). The organizing prin- ciples, laid out in the introduction to Tyler’s book, identify the school as the holder of power in decision making about what gets taught: 1. “What educational purposes should

the school seek to attain? 2. How can learning experiences be

selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives?

3. How can learning experiences be or- ganized for effective instruction? and

4. How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated?” (1949, p. v-vi).

In Tyler’s view, curriculum is a

cumulative process: over the course of the schooling years, educational exper- iences accumulate to exert profound changes in the learner, “in the ways water dripping upon a stone wears it away.” (1949, p. 83). Knowledge and skills are not duplicated, but instead, are taught sequentially over time. One spiral approach, in which learners re- turn to topics, in more complexity over time, can also be considered a tradi- tional approach. Skills-based or com- petency-based instruction, common in adult basic education, often draws upon a traditionalist approach to curriculum, with students mastering a given set of skills or procedures in a logical instructional sequence.

Advantages One of the advantages of the

traditional approach is that students like it: they’re used to it and it fits

Values and Beliefs:The World View Behind Curriculum by Amy Prevedel

“One of the advantages of the traditional

approach is that students like it: they’re used to it and it fits their idea of

what school should be.”

Focus onBasics

NCSALL • SEPTEMBER 2003 9

their idea of what school should be. Learning discrete skills in a step-by- step fashion lends itself to traditional testing. Test scores can be easily quantified and explained to funders as program outputs. Program administrators can use the results of traditional tests to justify their programs’ achieve- ments. Students, tutors and teachers can point to quantifiable progress, and that is certainly motivating.

Traditional curriculum also lends itself well to mass production: pub- lishers can produce workbooks that break down reading or math into subskills and processes, which students and teachers can easily navigate. The traditional approach is efficient in a field in which resources for staff develop- ment are scant. While teachers can create their own materials using a traditionalist approach, they can also draw upon commercially or locally

developed materials and methods. Volunteer tutors and adult basic education teachers without much training or time can easily teach from an existing curriculum.

The traditional approach is also accessible. Commercially produced traditional curricula and materials, via workbook or computer, are widely avail- able to learners who are interested in studying on their own. They don’t have to wait for a class to start or fit it into their schedules. Since National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL) research (Reder & Strawn, 2001) finds more people with low literacy skills engaged in self study than we might have assumed, the avail- ability of these materials is important.

Disadvantages In the traditional approach to

curriculum, someone other than the

student controls what is taught and when: the state, which has mandated a curriculum framework; the program, the teacher, or the book publisher. This perpetuates a power dynamic in which the teacher has a more valued form of knowledge, and more control, than the student. The student’s role is passive, and serves as an example of “banking education,” in which the expert teachers deposit knowledge into the student who lacks knowledge (Freire, 1970). Whether conscious or not, this approach supports the view that low literacy skills are the burden and/or the responsibility of the individual as opposed to the result of a complex interaction involving culture, race, class, language, gender, families, communities, economies and institutions of learning.

In its most extreme, the traditional model omits the importance of learner

Who determines curriculum?

What does knowledge look like?

What are the underlying assumptions?

What might this look like in action?

How is learning assessed?

Three Approaches to Curriculum Issue Traditional Approach Learner-Driven Approach Critical Approach

• Curriculum developer (publisher, state, institution) sets goals and chooses learning experiences, evaluates, plans and proposes curriculum

• Appears neutral and equitable in its availability

• Exists “out there,” can be organized and transmitted

• Is observable and measurable

• Pre-determined goals • Learning happens in a

linear, step-by-step fashion • Expert knowledge is important

• A classroom with lesson plans, homework, grades possibly

• Skills-based/sequenced text- books or workbook with pre- determined learning goals

• Objective, observable “scientific” means

• Can provide comparative scores

• Students articulate learning goals that spring from their real-world roles

• Students help plan curriculum

• Created through the interaction of student and text

• Builds on what learners already know

• Relevant to students’ real-life context

• Learning happens in social contexts • Instruction is transparent and based

on purposes students determine • Learners actively build on

knowledge and experience

• Apolitical on the surface • Drawn from adults’ lives in their

everyday contexts

• Performance of the student’s contextualized goal

• Continuing, involving metacog- nitive strategies

• Teacher leads the class while following the lead of learners

• Students, rather than “outsiders,” become experts

• Not fixed — dependent upon inter- action among students, text, and teacher

• Autobiographic – depends on the politics of identity brought to learning

• Complex interaction between text, the teacher, and what is taught

• Knowledge is created, rather than taken in

• Education is political • Language and power are connected

• Abandons technician mentality • Addresses social and community

issues of importance • Curriculum not set in advance;

emerges from “action and interaction of the participants” (Doll, 1993)

• Portfolios, self-assessment instruments • Measures of social and personal change • Levels of critical consciousness reached • External performance levels do not apply

10 SEPTEMBER 2003 • NCSALL

Focus onBasics experience, requiring a learner to accept, rather than challenge, the information being transmitted. In addition to insinuating to the adult learner that he is not capable of determining what it is he needs to learn, the cumulative element of the traditional approach can work against an adult’s needs. Adults often have immediate needs and motivations for learning and may not have time to accumu- late years of knowledge and skills to apply in the future. Discrete skills can be taught under the assumption that they will automatically transfer to any variety of situations outside the classroom.

The Learner- Driven Approach

In his theory of adult learning, Malcolm Knowles, often considered the father of adult education, says that adults come to education “with a life-centered, task- centered, or problem-centered orientation to learning. For the most part, adults do not learn for the sake of learning” (1984, p. 12). This view acknowledges the possible motives for learning that students bring to literacy education. A NCSALL study has shown that making progress toward self-determined learning goals is a major factor in adult learner per- sistence in ABE programs (Comings, Parrella, & Soricone, 2000). These two perspectives show adult learners as a dynamic force in ABE orientation to curriculum.

The term learner-driven is tricky. It suggests that the adult learner — not the subject matter — plays a cen- tral role in determining curriculum. Almost everyone I’ve spoken to who works in literacy says they work in a learner-centered program, where presumably everyone uses a learner- centered curriculum. However, some- one’s definition of learner-centered may mean that students get to pick out a skills workbook or decide where to sit

in the library. I prefer the pithy and challenging definition coined by Fingeret (2000, p. 14): students are involved in “developing instructional materials that respond to students’ interests and respect their culture and prior learning.” This definition sees

students taking an active role in de- veloping curriculum; the curriculum is based on their reasons for learning as well as what they bring with them into a learning situation. A more recent term, “learner-driven,” better describes the dynamic nature students bring to curriculum and instruction, which is why I chose it for this article.

Learner-driven approaches draw upon constructivism, a theory of learning in which “people learn when they relate new information and skills to what they already know, actively practice the new information and skills in a supportive environment, and get feedback on their performance. Learners construct their own under- standing from what they are exposed to in the classroom and what they have experienced in the rest of their lives” (Cromley, 2000, p. 10). Lev Vgotsky’s socio-cultural theory of cognition posits that mental functioning has its origins in social life; the very act of processing information goes beyond the direct functioning of the brain’s structure (Wertsch & Kanner, 1992). Historical, social, and cultural influences play major roles in shaping the way individuals think and

learn, and a learner-driven curriculum acknowledges these influences. The learner-driven approach also draws upon the work of contextual theorists, who believe that effective learning is situated within the social context of real surroundings and situations. Learning

skills means applying skills, which involves practice with the real activities and materials that come out of real-life situations (Bransford et al., 2000).

To develop learner-driven curriculum, teachers need to view learners as active inquirers who use previous experiences — both mental and social — to make meaning of the world. Curriculum springs from students’ purposes for learning and uses real-life materials and contexts. To identify and address students’ goals and purposes for learning, teachers ask adults what they

want to learn more about or be able to do better. Literacy education becomes less about attaining a discrete set of skills and more about gaining expertise in the literacy activities of everyday life. Students learn basic, mechanical, reading and writing skills in the pro- cess. As researcher Marilyn Gillespie writes about this approach in dis- cussing the Equipped for the Future initiative from the National Institute for Literacy, “Teachers begin with tasks learners need immediately in their daily lives and then ‘back into’ the knowledge, skills and strategies required to perform those tasks. This does not mean that basic skills are not covered, but they are addressed in an iterative rather than a sequential manner” (2002, p. 4).

Advantages A learner-driven approach to

curriculum by definition gives power to the learners: they are identified as the experts in knowing what they need to know. Students see their needs clearly reflected in the classroom, which is very motivating. The learner- driven approach creates a direct link between in-class work and learners’

“A learner-driven approach to curriculum

by definition gives power to the learners: they are

identified as the experts in knowing what they need

to know.”

Focus onBasics

NCSALL • SEPTEMBER 2003 11

need for literacy outside the classroom. As a result, learners can more easily transfer new skills to day-to-day use (Purcell-Gates, et al., 2001). The immediacy of this transfer of skills at home, at work, and in communities also encourages learner persistence.

The constructivist element of this approach honors the social and cultural context of the learner. Given that adult basic education learners are predominantly from marginalized groups in American society (D’Amico, in press), respecting learners’ perspec- tives is a bold political act. Learner- driven curriculum development pro- vides a rich picture of adult learning and moves beyond the image of ABE merely as “school for big people.”

Disadvantages A learner-driven approach often

relies on the teacher’s ability to create or select materials appropriate to learners’ expressed needs. This requires skill on the part of the teacher, as well as time and resources: at a minimum, texts brought in from real life, a wide pool of commercially available materials from which to draw, and a reliable photocopier. Given the reality of teachers’ professional preparation and working conditions (Smith, et al., 2001), lack of skill, time and resources makes creating curriculum with this approach difficult.

Teachers may also find it difficult to strike an acceptable balance among the competing needs and interests of students. Students are often initially un- comfortable with the seemingly ambiguous nature of a curricu- lum that is molded jointly by teacher and learners. Teachers, too, are often uncomfortable with asking students to share issues in their lives, they struggle with the balance between skills instruction and content necessary in this approach. In addition, while this approach recognizes the indivi- dual backgrounds of students, it does

not explicitly address political and power issues that cause and perpetuate marginalization and low literacy skills.

Finally, adult basic education programs, pushed to produce concrete outputs such as test scores, may feel that the creation of learner-driven curriculum is a luxury that they can not afford.

The Critical Approach

Those who embrace the critical approach consider education a politi- cal act, one that should function in emancipatory ways (Pinar, 1978). The pioneer of this approach was Paolo Freire (1985), a Brazilian adult literacy educator who worked with laborers, peasants, and fishermen and was greatly influenced by his experi- ences with these economically marginalized social classes. He believed that “illiteracy is one of the concrete expressions of an unjust

social reality” (1985, p. 10). Instead of the traditional “banking” model of adult education in which the teacher deposits politically neutral, technical knowledge into students, critical pedagogy assumes that education is a value-laden process. Learners actively create knowledge as they participate

in learning by taking a “critical look” at who has power and what impact that power has on the lives of those without it, recognizing the causal and circumstantial relationships that cause social injustice. Gaining power with words translates into gaining personal power and making change in the world.

Freire’s theories, and the curricula that spring from them, promote critical thinking, dialogue, and decision- making activities that support demo- cratic ideals and move toward socially critical consciousness. In developing critical curriculum, teachers must first learn about important issues in their students’ lives through conversations, journaling, discussions, and lots of listening. This research enables teachers to identify issues that relate to the experiences and concerns stu- dents identify. Reading and writing skills develop in tandem with critical thinking skills, and ultimately, literacy learning becomes a means of trans- forming students’ lives and commu-

nities. Often, a unit of curriculum ends with meaningful action that addresses a community need.

Within Freire’s activities and overarching goals, however, other theorists have located areas to further develop. For example, feminists point out that critical theory does not explicitly include gender issues, even though women often experience low literacy skills, or marginalization, in different ways and in different situations than men do. While Freire’s ideas take aim at disparities in social class, theorists writing after Freire have expressed a “sharpened interest in power and language, with an emphasis on a multiplicity of perspectives

that include race, class, gender, and culture.” (Hemphill, 1999, p. 2). Curriculum design — and adult education in general — needs to move beyond the concept of a universal adult learner and have the flexibility to include adults’ diverse identities and experiences.

“The critical approach to curriculum is, by

definition, political, putting power issues front and

center. It doesn’t ignore the difficulties that learners

face in life but provides a way for learners together to meet them head on.”

12 SEPTEMBER 2003 • NCSALL

Focus onBasics In this third approach, students are

central to the process of constructing and interpreting knowledge. Critical curriculum activities include journals, portfolios, and other autobiographical, literary and artistic methodologies (Slattery, 1995) that focus less on external objectives than on internal experiences. William Doll, a theorist who views curriculum as a means of gaining personal emancipation (1993), sees opportunity for two powerful actions in critical curriculum: self- organization and transformation. He writes, “Plans arise from action and are modified through actions...., this translates into course syllabi or lesson plans written in a general, loose, some- what indeterminate manner. As the course or lesson proceeds, specificity becomes more appropriate and is worked out conjointly—among teacher, students, text” (1993, p. 171). The negotiation that takes place engages both students and teachers in decision-making; students see them- selves as equal partners in solving problems in the classroom and beyond.

Advantages The critical approach to curricu-

lum is, by definition, political, putting power issues front and center. It does not ignore the difficulties that learners face in life but provides a way for learners together to meet them head

on. By doing so, it does not create a separation between learners’ lives and what they are learning, which, as in the learner-driven approach, is motiva- ting. In addition, the call to action in- herent in this approach helps learners bridge the “classroom/real world” divide. This method is rooted in the social justice movement. Teachers who believe in adult literacy as an element of social justice embrace the premises underlying this method.

Disadvantages The critical approach to curricu-

lum has many of same disadvantages of the learner-driven approach. It takes time. Teachers need a particular set of facilitation skills in addition to the skills needed to teach reading and writing, or English for speakers of other languages. Learners are not usually familiar with this approach, and may be uneasy with it. They may initially have trouble understanding how a class taught using this approach will help them, for example, pass the tests of General Educational Develop- ment (GED).

Since taking action is a crucial element of the curriculum, teachers need to recognize the potential that learners’ actions may cause backlash from powers that are being questioned or threatened. The teacher and program need to be committed to

supporting learners, rather than abandoning them if, for example, a landlord decides to evict students rather than rectify housing problems.

Conclusion Many teachers are not free to

choose their curriculum: the state, funder, or program has made that choice, or time and resources present so many restrictions that the choice is virtually made for them. In recog- nizing that curriculum design always reflects someone’s values and beliefs, those who have the luxury of making decisions about curricula have the responsibility to ensure that their choices reflect their views about the goals and purposes of education. That said, it is true that the lines between the approaches have blurred consid- erably. Many textbook series were developed with extensive input from learners. Some pose critical questions about issues of power; others include activities that help learners bridge the classroom/real life divide. Many teachers find ways to use traditional texts in learner-driven classrooms; and learner-driven curriculum can be a means of explicitly taking action for social change. My guess is that, like most teachers, you will draw from the best of each approach, creating your own, eclectic curriculum.

References Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R.,

(eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. The National Academy Press. (http://www. nap.edu/openbook/0309065364/html)

Comings, J., Parella, A., & Soricone, L. (2000, March). “Helping adults persist: Four supports.” Focus on Basics, 4A, 1-6.

Cromley, J. (2000). “Learning with computers: The theory behind the prac- tice.” Focus on Basics, 4C, 6-11.

D’Amico, D. (in press). “Race, Class, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in ABE.” In J. Comings, B. Garner, & C. Smith, (eds.) Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence J. Erlbaum.

One Topic, Three Approaches to Curriculum A class that uses a traditional approach to curriculum might cover

the topic “housing” in a series of lessons nested within a workbook that focuses on “life skills.” In a learner-driven class, a student might indicate interest in better understanding a rental agreement. The teacher might first find out what the students already know about contracts and rental agreements. Then the teacher might use the rental agreement to help learners build reading skills and develop reading strategies. In a class that uses a critical approach to curriculum, if students indicate that housing is an issue, a teacher might display pictures of types of housing, and lead a discussion about the kinds of housing with which students are familiar, the differences in housing, the underlying policies and power structures that lead to substandard housing. Reading and writing activities might center around writing letters to protest current housing policies, or discrimination in certain housing markets.

Focus onBasics

NCSALL • SEPTEMBER 2003 13

Doll, W. (1993). “Constructing a curriculum matrix.” A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Doll, W., & Alcazar, A., (1998). “Curriculum and concepts of control.” In W. Pinar (ed.) Curriculum: Toward New Identities. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Fingeret, H. (1992, 2000). Adult Literacy: Politics, Policy and Practice. A Background Paper Prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts. Literacy South.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Freire, P. (1985). The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation. Critical Studies in Education Series (eds. Freire, P. and Giroux H.). New York: Bergin and Garvey.

Gillespie, M. (2002). “EFF research principle: A contextualized approach to curriculum and instruction,” EFF Research to Practice Note 3, Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy.

Hemphill, D. (1999). “Incorporating postmodernist perspectives into adult education.” In V. Sheared & P. Sissel (eds.), Making Space: Reframing Theory and Practice in Adult Education, A

Grassroots Approach. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Knowles, M. (1984). “Introduction: The art and science of helping adults learn.” In M. Knowles and associates (eds.). Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Parkay, F. W. & Hass, G. (2000). Curricu- lum Planning: A Contemporary Approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon-Longwood

Pinar., W., (1978). “The reconceptualiza- tion of curriculum studies.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 10, no.3, pp.205-14.

Pinar, W. (ed.) (1998). Curriculum: Toward New Identities. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M (2001). “Taking literacy skills home.” Focus on Basics, 4D, 19-22.

Reder, S. & Strawn, C. (2001). “Program participation and self-directed learning to improve basic skills.” Focus on Basics, 4D, 15-18.

Slattery, P. (1995). “The reconceptual- ization of curriculum and instruction.” Curriculum Development in the Post- modern Era. New York: Garland Reference Library of Social Science.

Sleeter, C.E., Grant, C.A., (1991). “Race, class, gender, and disability in current textbooks.” In M. Apple & L. Christian Smith (eds.), The Politics of the Textbook. New York: Routledge Publications.

Smith, C., Gillespie, M., & Hofer, J. (2001). “The working conditions of adulat literacy teachers.” Focus on Basics 4D, 1-7.

Tyler, R. (1949). “How Can Learning Experiences be Organized for Effective Instruction?” Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wertsch, J. and Kanner, B. (1992). “A sociocultural approach to intellectual development.” In Sternberg & Bert (eds.), Intellectual Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

About the Author Amy Prevedel coordinates Berkeley Reads, the adult literacy program of the Berkeley Public Library. She has worked in volun- teer-based adult literacy settings for the past 10 years and holds a master’s degree in Adult Education from San Francisco State University. She is working toward certification as a national trainer for the Equipped for the Future initiative. ❖

The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Volume 3 John Comings, Barbara Garner, and Cristine Smith, Editors National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL)

The latest edition of this essential resource for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners presents the major issues, important research, and best practices in the field of adult learning and literacy.

Topics: The Year in Review; The Rise of Adult Education and Literacy in the United States; Adults with Learning Disabilities; Literacy Assessment; Numeracy; Professionalization and Certification for Teachers; Family Literacy (plus an annotated bibliography of resources).

Own All Three Volumes! Articles in Volumes 1 and 2 are as relevant today as when first published. This is your opportunity to purchase the complete set at a low price. Or choose a single volume to round out your collection.

Volume 1 Topics: Lessons from Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children; Youth in Adult Literacy Programs; Adult Literacy and Postsecondary Education Students; Health and Literacy; Assessment in Adult ESOL Instruction; Adult Learning and Literacy in the United Kingdom; Using Electronic Technology (plus useful resources).

Volume 2 Topics: Critical Pedagogy; Research in Writing; Correctional Education; Building Professional De- velopment Systems; Adult Learning and Literacy in Canada; Organizational Development (plus useful resources).

Save! Buy all three volumes

Only $7500

OR PURCHASE VOLUMES INDIVIDUALLY

Volume 3: $3000 each Volume 2: $2450 each Volume 1: $2450 each

To place an order, or to get more information, call Caye Caplan at 617-482-9485, ext. 278

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy